This essay will address the issues of micropolitics and social cohesion, fragmentation, educational policies applied to a different social context, the relationship between the institution as entities of force and power understood from educational and social perspectives, such is the case of the fragmentation that would derive from the differentiation of interest.
For the understanding of micropolitics it is intended to start from the educational institutional part that give the parameters for the execution of the micropolitics, the importance of it within the institution, the understanding of the administrative framework as a reference for change from the conflict in addition to the importance of educational policies within the institutions, criticizing the actions undertaken for educational improvement and taking into account the social repercussions.
School organizations.
From the interpretation of the social sciences the term organization refers to a type of characteristic social unit that distinguishes it from others such as families, peer groups, tribes with units and national states (Hoyle, 1996: 25). When describing organizations in a traditional (technical-rational) way, they are said to have relatively specific objectives, differentiated tasks, a clear division of labor, a structure to coordinate diverse activities, legitimate authority that sends certain members and a set of procedures for management, all of which would allow its effective functioning (Holey, 1986: 1).
The use of these structural categories does not allow us to affirm, in spite of everything, that there is a single theory of organization, a single abstraction called organization. The term is used to cover diverse perspectives, models and theories with which social scientists seek to undertake organizations.
Nor is there a single and comprehensive body of knowledge about the school organization, but rather different theoretical approaches from which the analysis of the school is proposed "each approach builds theory from the point of view that is normative rather than descriptive" (Glatter 1986: 162). A position that implies a homogeneous cultural vision since all educational problems can be solved regardless of their origin and regardless of the context in which they arise.
The theorists of the sociology of organizations, enclosed above all in systems theory (a perspective that develops in parallel with the increase in control and the demand for accounts of the educational administration), have found themselves more in the prescription than in the description and explanation of intra-organizational conflicts or contradictions that occur in schools, considering that such conflicts occur frequently and normally.
The field of school organization has aroused growing interest in academic contexts, due to the change in epistemological perspectives that serve as support for theoretical analyzes with which to understand schools as organizations. But this change has become generalized and the emphasis is on describing the difficulties that exist in applying organization theories to the school context.
From the educational point of view, it is interesting to integrate different knowledge habits to understand identity, limits and institutional coordination. On the other hand, it is necessary to establish distinctions and relationships between the different theories that already exist to explain school organizations.
Institutions manifest characteristic aspects of an administration, in this case school administration; the political image of the school focuses on conflicting interests among members of the organization. This to achieve their interests, they employ different strategies, such as, for example, the creation of alliances and coalitions, bargaining and commitment to action. The identification of strategies and the selection of the most appropriate for each conflict situation require different skills in the actors.
These strategies can be easily identifiable by the theorists of the organizations, but, on the other hand, in general lines the actors of the educational institutions do not recognize that in the schools scenarios of political activity are built, although they accept, that yes that the policy accepts to the school as part of the government system that governs society.
This lack of vision prevents us from understanding what happens in school and why it happens from our point of view, considering the school as a political system that does not allow us to understand it as a less rational and bureaucratic institution than what has traditionally been believed to be. was. The school as such must play more pedagogical than administrative roles, the social action of the school is purely educational, although it involves a large part of its constitution with elements of the administration, generating aspects of a political image that should focus on interests in conflict between the different members of the institution and organization.
The micropolitics of schools has received little attention from theorists and researchers. It occupies little space in the theories of organization, and even less in those of management, it is a taboo subject in serious debates, they are subjects that are addressed in the teachers' room, in the cafeteria and hallways; This can be deduced that it is due to aspects such as the field of study of micropolitics, in addition to being the object of studies of a great variety of disciplines such as psychology, education, sociology, anthropology, among others, possibly the interpretation from different approaches makes that micropolitics does not have a clear central and well-founded focus that would make its study easier.
Micropolitics represents a fairly large possibility of change in terms of what is established within the economic and social aspects of an institution, in addition to recognizing the value of the context in the reorganization of normative structures of schools, the order of schools is constantly negotiation from a political action. With the internal influence of different interests, information exchange, the influence that one exerts by the other or by certain action and of course by power.
This leads to a constant struggle in the attempt to forge unanimity of interests, presenting divergent problems and conflicts that must be understood as something natural and with a positive perspective, contracting to the institution an institutional, structural, social change, in most cases a certain change is intended to be positive for the institution.
The determination that is intended to establish between the instituted and the instituting (which comes to change the instituted) is presented from the conflict that arises between the interests of the members of the school, provoking change , it should be noted that the school will not always live in constant conflict and it will not always be an emergency problem to be solved, but it will almost always be based on differences of ideas and the struggle for institutional power to create micropolitics.
It is worth mentioning that the school fulfills two fundamental roles, one is to transmit and the other to be a socializer. The school as a socializer must be understood as a key factor to learn to live with each other, under rules and regulations imposed by the same individuals, with the school itself being the one that will reproduce these forms of socialization, although there should be more spaces capable of carrying carried out socialization as such, the school aims to reach all members of society, leading to social cohesion. The concern for social union has determined various changes within educational institutions, since for this social cohesion to work they must participate within the institution; These challenges are largely the same as the educational system itself,school dropout is the main problem preventing proliferating social cohesion from taking place.
The strategies for the collaboration of social cohesion must be raised from a macro level and not as has been done since the school curriculum, these strategies must be policies that involve societies, educational organizations and the state. The search for social cohesion must be linked to micropolitics and be understood not only from man's obligations but also from his rights. The implication of rights as social cohesion can also be contradictory for the social purpose, but the implementations of political strategies must form a social balance, which in the end is what is sought with social cohesion.
The presence of an unequal formation of values is pretentious to a social fragmentation, spreading advantages for some and disadvantages for others, social cohesion is defined by the European Union as the ability of a society to ensure the well-being of all its members, minimizing disparities and avoiding polarization. (Cox 2007) from this perspective it could be said that social fragmentation is the opposite of cohesion, since it does not promote the well-being of the entire society, it is typical of disparate societies and tends to polarization.
Fragmentation also arises from educational policy, specifying a strategic error in the educational system, the school as a socializer and reformer contributes to either of the two facts from its approach, making permanent agreements the operation of two types of decisions: academic and administrative-financial, While these and other decisions are traversed by politics such as: curricular definition, pedagogical organization, student evaluation, admission decision.
The educational policies govern the operation of the school, contributing directly to the development of the same, from the educational policy the processes that are going to be carried out in the institutions must be raised, the educational centers with the internal associations finish settling the plans and programs imposed by state policy, the formation of micropolitics within educational centers bear a limitation of the realization of plans outside the institution. In the foreground, the authorization of said programs can be highlighted in the context where it is intended to apply by contracting a modification of the program itself, as long as it is necessaryIn most cases, the decontextualization of study plans and programs has led to de-schooling at different levels and school dropout.
As policies move from formulation to practice, spaces for action and response open up. There are social, institutional, and personal circumstances that will affect the way in which policies are understood by those who should implement them (Ball 1993).
The fact of social fragmentation is not always due to the lack of concern of the educational political system; In some cases, the executors of these policies are responsible for the malfunction, it is exemplified when anti-discrimination programs are presented by the system, the implementation distorts the intention of the plan, the teachers in charge of developing and implementing the same programs do not comply with The expectations to carry it out, there are teachers who discriminate by applying anti-discrimination programs, this is contradictory and not very productive for the educational system.
In the present work, social cohesion has been approached from the educational micropolitics, emphasizing it as a reproducer of social cohesion itself as long as the educational policies of the state are conducive to formation and reproduction. In addition to being applied correctly in the corresponding contexts. The school is seen as a reproducer of educational policies, from the organization curricular aspects are implemented in a formative way, contextualization is an important part of instruction, since the application of plans and programs must adequately contribute to the intellectual and social development of the student to that the training is more complete, in addition to facilitating the incorporation of the same individual into society.
Download the original file
